Important Blog

last couple blogs have been long but i think this one is really important as i want to make a point on something i feel most, by that i mean 99% of americans dont know about. Actually like 99.9%. So the post itself is kind of long (though important) but the points so important that I summarized it at the end for people who wouldnt read the whole post. If you dont like to read, then just skim to the summary at the bottom.
______________________________________________________

If you arnt aware parts a classified report was leaked, it is a "National Intelligence Estimate" which is the highest level of any intelligence report in the US and a work of every single intelligence agency we have. It said that the invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, it radicalized muslims across the globe, vastly increased the strength of al qaeda/terrorists both through an insane increase in recruits as well as those who want to finance terrorism. Basically, there are thousands if not millions of Muslims who were not terrorists before the invasion; they were living their lives and probably didnt like the US but would not go as far as to join Al Qaeda. The invasion of Iraq changed that, and we basically fucked ourselves over. Yadda yadda yadda. And its making headlines and is the big thing etc etc

My response to the report is; well no shit. Of course it increased the threat of terrorism. That was *predicted* before the war; both by terrorist experts (as well as anyone who can use logic) and government intelligence analysts who TOLD the president that. And in the first two years after our invasion terrorist attacks around the world skyrocketed, mainly targeting US allies; and thats according to the State Department's annual report of worldwide terrorist incidents; a report that was regarded as THE authority on such statistics until 2004 when the Bush Admin decided they wont publish those reports anymore (the final one showed terrorism tripling from the year before.) And there have been other reports, from teh CIA and elsewhere; including one from 2005 that was fully public (unlike the current one) that said the same thing, and even said Iraq had become what afghanistan was in the 80's, essentially a 'breeding ground for terrorism' where would-be fighters can come, openly train in terrorist techniques, then leave for europe/USA. SO my point in this is; nobody should be suprised. Everyone knows this. The Democrats are acting shocked and appalled because mid-term elections are fairly close and the Republicans are running as the party that keeps you safe, something this report contradicts (makes you wondered who leaked it and why!)

BUT ALL OF THIS OVERLOOKS SOMETHING THAT ISNT BEING REPORTED

What is "the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States?" Kerry and Bush were asked that very straightforward question in their first debate. Here are the first three sentences of Kerry's reponse "Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear Proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia."

Then it was Bush's turn and he was kind of ambiguous an unarticulate but it seemed like he agreed with Kerry.
But just to be sure the moderator said to Bush "So it's correct to say, that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree, if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation?"

Bush "In the hands of a terrorist enemy"

_________________________________________________________

Ok so thats my background; 1. Its been established the invasion of Iraq increased terrorism and the threat to our safety, and 2. Bush believes the single most serious threat the US faces is nuclear weapons "in the hands of a terrorist enemy."

Well "nuclear proliferation" means the spread of nuclear weapons to countries/terrorists, anyone. Thats why Kerry said "nuclear proliferation". Why did Bush specify "in the hands of a terrorist enemy" Well its also fairly clear the invasion of Iraq caused North Korea and Iran seek nukes for protection from the USA; thus the invasion worked against nuclear proliferation in that part. But what about "in the hands of a terrorist enemy" hmmm. What about that... hmmm

and now to my point:
______________________________________________________

If we had the chance to do it all over again, knowing everything we do now, the Bush Administration would still invade Iraq. Why? Because Iraq had the capability to make WMD, and couldve given them to a terrorist; thats what Bush says now. So is he right? Here is where Im going to reveal something thats not known by 99.9% of Americans:

Bush is right. Iraq had the capability to make WMD, specifically, nuclear weapons; (remember Bush talking about a mushroom cloud in the USA?). Now, they didnt have full capability; but at the time of the US invasion Iraq had significant quantities of yellow cake uranium (highly radioactive material used in nuclear bombs) as well as quite a supply of sophisticated equipment used to manifacture/weaponize a bomb. And everyone know they had it; and they knew where it all was. How did they know? Because Iraq told everyone.

Because Iraq had a nuclear program in the 80's, which was shut down in the early 1990's by the UN and had been kept under UN control ever since. Although the UN left in 1998, when they returned for inspectotions just before the 2003 US invasion, everything was still there (which they knew through satellite survelliance anyway.) And other inspectors were all over Iraq and couldnt find any secret/hidden WMD or programs and then suddenly Bush said "Well you just cant find them but they're there. I suggest you leave Iraq ASAP, in 48 hours we're invading." The UN frantically got out, making sure to put special seals on the nuclear facilities; not just to keep people from breaking in (obviously you can smash a lock) but so there would be an indication when they came back later if anyone had broken in.


And then they went home. And their boss, Mohammed El Baredi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (arm of the UN) pick up the phone and called Washington. And he said "If you are going to invade, please, please make sure you secure these nuclear facilities. They are filled with radioactive material and stocked with equipment used for making nuclear bombs," and Baredi said, and this hasnt been disputed; that the Bush Admin promised it would be secured.

And why wouldnt they? The reason they invaded was to "disarm" Iraq, and nuclear weapons are the worst arms of all. And after all, as Bush later said, the most serious threat we face is not just nuclear proliferation, but "in the hands of a terrorist" specifically; and a nuclear facility would be the best place for a terrorist to get what he needs.

Isnt that why we invaded back then? Isnt that why Bush says he would still invade?
_______________________________________________________


"It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil."
-Donald Rumsfeld 2003

___________________________________________________________

The first thing the US did when they invaded, within hours according to the official record, was to seize every oil well they could. They said that Saddam might explode the oil wells (as he did in 1991) and thus they must be protected.

Then they moved up the country, securing all the oil wells. And then they got to Baghdad where there are no oil wells. From Time Magazine:

"When U.S. forces rolled into downtown Baghdad, they headed straight for the Oil Ministry building and threw up a protective shield around it. While other government buildings, ranging from the Ministry of Religious Affairs to the National Museum of Antiquities, were looted and pillaged, while hospitals were stripped of medicine and basic equipment, Iraq's oil records were safe and secure, guarded by the U.S. military. General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had an explanation: "I think it's, as much as anything else, a matter of priorities."

I'll start to wrap it up here because I think you've by now guessed the next thing Im going to say.

They didnt secure the nuclear facilities. They drove right past them, securing oil wells along the way; saying the oil wells had to be protected.

Its not that they didnt know where the nuclear facilities were They had been under UN control, everyone knew where they were, it was not a secret

Its not that they didnt know what was inside They knew exactly what was in the facilities, the UN reported everything that was there just before they left (so we could invade)

Its not that they forgot El Baradei begged them to secure the facilities, and they said they would.

Now you are wondering, what happened to the nuclear facilities then?

Well they pulled down a statue of Saddam in Baghdad and Bush stood on a naval ship to declared the war was over, "Mission Accomplished". Except there werent enough soldiers and everyone in Iraq just started going nuts and rioting and looting everything in sight. And when asked whats going on Rumsfeld said "Freedom is untidy...stuff happens" (actual quote)

And so Mohammad El Baradi calls Bush again, knowing Bush didnt bother nor probably cared about the nuclear sites, and Baradi said "OK let my nuclear inspection team in we need to get to those sights ASAP" And Bush refused (to cover their asses?). So a few weeks later Barardi tried again, and again, and again. Finally the US said they can inspect it; but they will be accompanied by US soldiers who will watch them and may ask them to leave at anytime.

So in August, finally, the UN inspectors returned to the nuclear facilities. It was ravaged, completely dismantled, shitloads of stuff missing, insanely looted; by a lot of people. In fact they found out a lot of people from the town next door came to take barrels (for farming or something) and so they dumped out barrels FILLED WITH URANIUM then took the empty barrel and left. And shortly after the invasion everyone in that town became extremely sick (im not even making this up)

Everyone was shocked and the Bush people said "oh... geeze this mustve happened in the chaos of those first couple days of the invasion, maybe before we even got this far in" but actually there were satellites who's entire job was to watch these sights (for when the UN left in 1998) and according to those the looting wasnt a couple day period. It was a couple month period. It just went on, and the Bush Admin just didnt care.

I'll again paste General Myers answer when he was asked by the oil ministry was protected while everything else ignored, before and during the massive looting.

"I think it's, as much as anything else, a matter of priorities."

___________________________________________________

Summary:

So let me just some up the main points in case you didnt read/just skimmed what I wrote above:

-Iraq had a nuclear weapons facility, fully stocked with everything you need to make a nuclear bomb, including yellow cake uranium. It wasnt mention as a threat because it has been under UN control since 1991 and even when the UN left Iraq they had satellites watching it 24/7. When they came back briefly in 2003 everything was still there, but they were ordered to leave the country so the US could invade.

-Even though it seemed so obvious it goes without saying, the UN still sought and recieved assurances from the US that when they invaded the nuclear sites would be secured. They were not. Instead the US secured Iraqi oil fields "within hours" of the invasion and in Baghdad secured only the oil ministry; even when widespread looting of museums, hospitals etc. began and went on for weeks, they still only protected the oil minitry and oil fields.

-Quickly realizing the Bush people wasnt going to the nuclear sites, nor cared about it, the UN publically begged the US for months to be allowed to go to those sites; openly stating there was nuclear material that could be taken and used by a terrorist for radiological bombs. Five months after the US invasion, the UN came in and of course the nuclear facilities had been ravaged.

So when Bush says he still would've invaded because Iraq had at least the capability to make nuclear weapons and could put them "in the hands of a terrorist"; which Bush declared was the single most serious threat facing the United States; I would hope most people realize Bush is full of shit. For years people on both parties have said its urgent we secure loose nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union so a terrorist cant get them. And even though we didnt have enough soldiers in general, they had enough to secure all the oil fields. THE OIL FIELDS. And they admitted they did that because it was "a matter of priorities."

The United States literally invaded Iraq, saying it thought Iraq could hypothetically develop a nuclear weapon and give it to a terrorist (a scenario nobody took seriously.) And yet when the US invaded Iraq, they allowed the nuclear facilities to be looted and now nobody knows where the missing inventory went. And they dont care.

But for the Congressional elections; the REPUBLICANS main argument for keeping them in power is that they are the best party on national security and keeping the US safe from terrorists and WMD; and the DEMOCRATS are weak on national security and just dont care.

So when we read in the paper that yet another intelligence report has concluded that by invading Iraq the US greatly strengthed Al Qaeda and inspired thousands (if not millions) of people to become terrorists or support terrorist, and not only that but gave terrorists a wide open place where they can actually train and become experts in terrorist tactics; there is one other piece missing. WE ALSO GAVE THEM MATERIALS TO MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB!

Invaded Iraq to take their WMD and decrease the threat of terrorism and found:

1. No WMD

2. No ties to terrorism

We ended up:

1. Increasing the threat of terrorism

2. Creating a new generation of terrorists, and

3. Supplied them with radioactive material to make a nuclear bomb.

Now tell me again you would still invade Iraq.

crazy

I was skimming over an article about how after the terrorists attacked, the President sought broader wiretap authority from Congress to prevent future attacks but many in the Congress were trying to block that, and the President may not get the wiretap authority.

"Wait a minute..." I thought. "Something isnt right here..." Bush didnt go to Congress to seek wiretap authority after the terrorists attacked. He just started the program secretly without telling them, and after he got caught he demanded they pass a bill that says it was legal all along.

"This article has it all wrong!" I shouted. And then all over the sudden I saw the date of the article: July 30, 1996. The headline "President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws"

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Having just gone through a terrorist attacks at the Olympics in Atlanta, which thankfully killed no one, Clinton decided the next terrorist attack might be more successful and urged that the bill get passed immediately. The Republicans said there were some parts of the bill they disagreed with, like expanding the President's wiretapping authority.

Clinton's response?

I suspect if it were Bush he would've implied that by delaying the bill because they disagree with some parts of it, they are putting everyone in danger. Instead Clinton basically said "OK fine but you guys are about to take another vacation; so take the parts of the bill that everyone already agrees on, pass that into law; take your vacation, and then you can debate the provisions you have issues with"

Instead the Republicans said 'meh' and closed down congress, they later passed the bill, having removed the wiretapping authority.




Aside from the fact that efforts to make Clinton look weak on terror are completely wrong, and the GOP actually dragged their feet on his efforts, there is one interesting side point to all of this.


Clinton asked for an expansion of the president's wiretapping authority to track terrorists, and the Republican Congress said no. Bush didn't even ask congress, or tell them, when he began a much, much broader wiretapping program to track terrorists; and when it was leaked to the media and became obvious that Bush was breaking the law; the SAME Republicans who took would not put that program into law for Clinton suddenly claimed that the President(Bush) doesnt need a law to give him that authority, he already has it!

Is that why the Republicans refused to pass an anti-terrorism bill that expanding the president's wiretapping ability? Because they believed he already had that authority and it was thus a moot point? I dont remember them saying that to Clinton... I remember they saying something like "no this goes too far, i dont want the president to have this authority."


And so; after claiming Bush's secret illegal wiretapping program; vastly more expansive then what Clinton propose, was in fact not illegal; the Republican Congress set to work on writing a bill that gave President Bush the legal authority to continue the program; which they said was legal anyway.

Perhaps they knew the program was illegal without Congressional authority? I think so. That would explain why the bill not only said the program is now legal, but actually made it "retroactively" legal, so that Bush wouldnt get in trouble for the years before the bill passed when he was breaking the law.

That literally means that if you say Bush is a criminal because he was breaking the law when he started the program in 2002; someone can respond to you that a law passed in 2006 gave him that authority... and they would be right.

GO READ 1984! PEOPLE SHOULD BE GOING NUTS!!


Does anyone remember the War Crimes Act of 1996? The Republicans were gung-ho about passing a bill that says anyone who commits war crimes will be automatically be SENTENCED TO DEATH! WOAH!!!!!


Only, remember Bush's secret torture program? Apparently that breaks quite a few war crimes. Which means, under the Republican passed War Crimes Act.... oh shiioooot...

FEAR NOT! Bush has now asked the Republican Congress to, once again, retroactively make all the illegal acts he committed, magically legal! Thus the new torture "comprimise" bill (as in mccain/warner/graham comprimised their own and the nation's integrity) has made it so that anyone who committed any war crimes for the USA in the past few years, including torture, is exempt fro the War Crimes Act! horray!


Im beginning to think if Bush raped and killed some woman, on the street in broad daylight in front of people; Congress would quickly convene a pass a bill that not only makes rape and murder legal, but makes it retroactive so it applies to earlier that day when bush did it























MID TERM ELECTIONS CAN CHANGE ALL OF THIS

Bored At Work!

Today's blog is entitled:

The Hallway Hello

and other office work observations

There is something about working in this office that can be a bit annoying; not very annoying but annoying like a nusance. Its what I call the "hallway hello." I work in an office of some twenty-odd people. Its a very ecclectic group that is divided into various subgroups who mainly keep to eachother, but small enough that we are all supposed to know eachothers names (something I have almost accomplished.)

There are some friendly people, some very weird, some annoying, etc. But here is where it all comes together: The way the office is structured is as follows, you walk in and there is a big area (a receptionist desk and about offices.) Walking through this open space (its not a separate room) there is a long hallway, lined with offices (and one cubicle...) and at the end of the hallway are two more offices and.... most importantly....the kitchen, with its fridge for your lunch, spring water, and free coffee. Thus people make several trips to the kitchen a day and encounter the problem of the Hallway Hello.

Picture this, you are at one end of the hallway (a ten second walk, probably less) and there is a co-worker at the other end, both walking toward eachother to get to the other side. You dont really talk to this co-worker because they are weird/reclusive/annoying but you've already said hello to them today when you saw them earlier. In fact, you did a 'hello how are you'. And you just saw them two seconds ago at the fax machine and made painfully forced small talk.

SO you dont really have the option of just saying "hello" when you walk past eachother (if you dont understand why a 'hello' wont suffice, lets just say for argument's sake that aside from already said hello this morning and had small talk at the fax machine, you walked by eachother in the hallway when you were going to the kitchen and you still said 'hello'; and now its 1 min later, your going back to your desk and its the exact person walking down the hall. Its weird to just say hello everytime you see someone, even if you just saw them a second ago. Therefore you have a dilema of WHAT to say?)

I've been observing this for months and I think everyone shares this dilema. I have observed three ways that tactics that are overwhelmingly used.

1. The Passby Comment: Since saying "hello" isnt an option as you see this person 20 times a day, and because the hallway is long enough that keeping completely silent means you will have a good 10 seconds just walking toward, then past that person without even looking at them (and thats too akward for you) a common solution is the 'passby comment.' It is quite useful because this is work and 95% of the time the person walking toward you is thinking the same thing "ive got a lot of stuff to do and dont feel like stopping and talking." Thus you both understand that as you are walking, one of you will make a quick comment, the other responds/fakes laughs, and you continue on your ways. An example might be "great game last night huh?" to which you say "oh yeah ! brady's on fire" (sidenote im not refering to last night's patriots game.)

Here is the downfall to this technique: It highly depends on who the other person is. If its the really friendly guy/girl in the office who everyone loves, dont worry they will handle it! But thats not always the case and anyway, you dont always pass someone in the hall, sometimes you are tired/cranky and walking back from the kitchen with a coffee and boom, its the office wierdo who is quiet but you've tried to make friendly conversation with him in the past when you were in a better mood, so you cant pretend like you guys dont talk, plus you kind of feel bad for him. Well its friggin hard to think on your feet like that. Ill tell ya. My advice is just think of something to say anyway as most people understand the akward hallway hello and will respond in their part. Its obviously easier if you have a good relationship with that person, harder if its the wierdo temp. At my office Im only one of two people below the age of 30 so it varies a lot. Every once and a while this will fail because the person kind of ignores you or brushes you off (it doesnt count if its the quiet person). But thats benefitial too because once someone does that you dont have to feel akward about passing them in silence in the future (just say to yourself 'that person is rude anyways im not going to waste my energy')

turning to option #2...

2. The look-down/paper shuffle: This option works for more short-term walk-bys. For example although the office hallway where I work is long, there are offices that line it and thus someone can pop out and walk by you real quick. Sometimes a person will happen to have papers in his/her hand and shuffle them around as they walk by; this gives the impression that you are busy and your mind is racing about something you are doing so its not rude to rush past a co-worker. During the long-hallway walk, even if you headed toward the coffee machine its also useful because you can hold the papers up and look through them more slowly but still focused! Of course this can only work if you have papers in your hand, which aint always the case!

So if you dont like to talk and are empty handed, there is always option #3

3. The tight faced fake smile flash: This is very useful for exchanges with the average worker; ie not the always friendly one but not the office wierdo. You are walking down the hall and make brief eye contact right as you pass and give a quick smile. Its usually a small, no teeth sort of half smile, although there are those who can pull off a full smile and not look weird or peppy. The best part is, it also works with people who you have a very good, friendly relationship with. ie someone who you chat with a lot but your walking down the hall to grab something; you dont feel the need to make a fake comment but dont want to just keep walkin so you give a quick smile, you'll probably be chatting later on anyway.

Those are three techniques for dealing with the "Hallway Hello." You can, of course, just say "hello" if its someone you dont see a lot (like the main boss at my company) or a lower-level boss who you've seen a couple times that day around the copy machine but hadnt said hello to yet. These techniques are, I believe, very widespread, and perhaps global; I think because of a deep-seded feature in most humans that likes to avoid akwardness, like a painful 15 seconds of two people walking toward eachother, trying to think of something to say even though they just want to get to the other end.... The solution is the Hallway Hello. So if you dont know, now you know.

______

I anticipate a lot of e-mail response to this so I will just answer now what I expect to be the two most popular questions.

1. I use a mix of all three techniques, depending my mood, the time of day, and the person Im walking past. And no it dont always work

2. Yes I actually sat at work writing this instead of doing what im paid to do.

cant forget this one

Just read something I found hilarious and too funny not to mention.

Sen George Allen of Virginia (republican up for re-election) is known for his racial slurs and ties to pro-confederate and white supremicist groups who seek an all white, all christian America, and he may win re-election (i suspect this is because all the moderates in Virginia moved to the western half of the state during the civil war and declared themselves a separate, new state 'west virginia' and joined the Union, thus leaving all the pro-slavery freaks in regular Virignia... who continued to populate for years and elect people like George Allen)

Well George Allen's worst fears came true recently, when someone at a campaign event asked about a report that Allen's mother was raised jewish, and Allen started shvitzin like a maza ball. He actually angrily lectured the reporter saying, ironically, that religion has no place in politics; and the crowd cheered unaware of the irony seeing as how Allen regularly flaunts his christianity for political gain.

Of course that made reporters dig more and Allen had to come clean, his mother was not only raised jewish but grew up in north africa, a double whammy! She is still white, but does this not technically make her african-america? This is the hilarious part because his response to all this, instead of saying something normal like 'oh yes i found out i have a rich legacy and history', or since he is in Virginia he couldve said 'Im so happy, I found out I have yet another thing in common with Jesus Christ, we both had jewish mothers', instead Allen decided to continue pandering to his base. First he claimed he found out only recently his mother had been raised Jewish and she told him (this his actual story) that she kept it secret becuase she thought he would HATE her if he knew.

I think most people share my reaction to that "what kind of a mother thinks her son would hate her if he found out she used to be jewish?" me thinks Allen is trying to reassure his base by basically implying his mother thinks he is anti-semetic! And the sad thing is, this probably will help him with the white supremicist groups who would otherwise ditch him.

And to make sure his message came across loud and clear, that he is not nor has he ever been Jewish, Allen ended a recent interview with an assurance to everyone in Virginia, in case they were worried, about his dietary habits. His exact quote (Im not making this up) "I still had a ham sandwich for lunch. And my mother made great pork chops."

Only in the south, kids. Only in the south.





I might add I realize the hypocrisy in myself as I stereotype "the south" (am still angry about 04 i admit) and Virginia in particular, after all we've had some good presidents from Virginia, like Washington, he was ok (although a slaver owner and thus partially fitting my stereotype but I digress.)

So ill mention for a disclaimer its just Virginia republicans who support George Allen that I think are red necks; but no i dont think they are ALL like that. Im sure there are some very wealthy Virginians who support George Allen because his opinion on the capitals gains and estate tax. There is hope, however. There is one prominent Virginian who was a Republican (decorated Vietnam vet and Sec of Navy under Regan) but recently switched to the Democratic party and is running against Sen Allen on, among other things, and antiwar platform (no doubt a tough sell in a red state.) Incidentally Jim Webb (the challenger) took a several day complete break from the campaign at a crucial time, just as he was pulling close to Allen in the polls. What happened?

He wanted to spend as much time as he could with his son, a marine, in the last few days they had together before he was shipped off to the war in Iraq. Its not very well known, although it would obviously help him win points, because he doesnt wish to exploit his son for political reasons. Heart warming? yes, but even more so is significant of what kind of senator he would be. Because it basically shows that Webb's own personal experience, having a son fighting in a war, affect how he is campaigning and probably would affect how he votes as a senator.

Which means there would be someone in the US Senate (80% white, millionare males over 40) who would be voting on things related to the war in iraq knowing, unlike everyone else, it will have direct consequences on his child's life. One would expect that senator should be taken seriously, whether he is against the war like Webb, or hard-core pro-war like McCain (who's son is in marine training and MIGHT go to iraq next summer).


So i doubt anyone from virginia reads this but how is this even a choice?

Jim Webb: A lifelong republican and decorated war veteran, who may be Democrat now but is still very conservative and in line with Virginians on most issues. He is against a war that was launched because it was mistakenly believed there were WMDs and has now cost $300 b and the intelligence agencies say is fueling anti-american terrorism(see my earlier blog) and a war his own son is in.

or

George Allen: Never served in the military, advocates continuation of a pointless war that is a detriment to our security and has american soldiers dying on the battlefield everyday. He makes racial slurs, is tied to white supremicist groups, and proudly announced that his own mother thought Allen would hate her if he knew she was Jewish while assuring everyone he steal eats ham and pork chops.


Every state is different but I just hope Virginians know what they are getting in their senator. I leave you now with some lyrics from Creedence Clearwater Revival's passionate and haunting war song (and one of my favorite songs in general) "Who'll stop the rain?"


I went down Virginia, seekin shelter from the storm.

Caught up in the fable, I watched the tower grow.

Five year plans and new deals, wrapped in golden chains.

And I wonder, still I wonder wholl stop the rain

every once and a while you sort of get dizzy...

WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

The War in Iraq: $300 billion dollars and counting.
Here is what we $300 billion could have done.
1. Free college for everyone in the USA
2. End world hunger (only $6 bil)
3.Full funding for world-wide aids program
4. Full funding for immunizations for EVERY CHILD IN THE WORLD
After that we would have roughly $250 left. Here is what we got from spending it on Iraq instead:


1. No WMD
2. No Al Qaeda links
3. 2,700 dead Americans
4. 100,000 + dead Iraqis
5. INCREASED the threat of terrorism and "spawned a new generation" of terrorists



Pardon the outrage but WHY DOES NOBODY CARE. The USA is the wealthiest nation on the planet, by far, and spends the lowest amount on non-military aid (as % of GDP) on any industrial nation. In fact, we have the worst child mortality rate of any industrial nation. I dont know anyone saw but a report came out earlier this summer that was pleasing if you read the title, it said the number of children with health insurance was up. If you read the report it explained why. Its because more children are living in poverty and qualifying for public assistance. Poverty in the USA has increased every year, dramatically, "most concetrated among children" to quote the government reports, since 2000. The Forbes 400 keep getting dramatically richer though, in fact this year for the first time ever, every single one of them is a billionare.


I would love for someone to explain to me WHAT BENEFIT the US has gotten out of invading Iraq. With the money spent there we could END WORLD HUNGER, we could have FULL HEALTH CARE, FREE COLLEGE, and have a shitload left over! Thats just from the money ALREADY SPENT in Iraq and does not include future estimates.

The Iraq War has NOT made us safer. Although its logical if you pay attention but now we have the intelligence agencies coming out point blank and saying the invasion has DRAMATICALLY increased the threat of terrorism, and has inspired people who were never involved in terrorism to become terrorists themselves. We are in MASSIVE debt, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands of people... so that we could be in MORE DANGER? and the alternative was.... ENDING WORLD HUNGER??!?!??!?!


Im currently losing my mind. must go mow the lawn. if anyone reading this would like to give me a good argument for the invasion please let me know. its hypocritical to say this but when you consider everything we couldve done with $300 bil spent in Iraq, it makes me sick to my stomach that no one cares; ignorance is not an excuse when your living in a democracy and you have the ability to affect change so your fucking tax money from your java latte is going to make bombs that destroy people. if/when there is another terrorist attack on the USA, and someone asks why they hate us, or say 'they hate our freedom', i will probably punch them


God bless the mess we've made




and by the way if you DIDNT know the information above but have read it now, you are even more responsible because now you know whats going on and are still ignoring it. there are ways. just ask. or bring me an iced coffee and ill tell you (medium cinnamon hazelnut with small amount of cream and sugar, from honey dew)

Kevin Maley adds new post to blog

Havnt posted in a while but thought this was another hilarious example of why I think American media is a joke. Here is a little quiz

Today (Friday Sept 8th) the lead story in the prestigous Washington Post is...

(A) Paris Hilton gets DUI
(B) Baby Suri pictures finally revealed
(C) Nobody likes the new Facebook


If you guessed (A) or (B) you are wrong, those were lead stories earlier this week. If you guessed (C) "Nobody likes the new Facebook" you are correct. To quote the Washington Post:

"Denizens of one of the Web's most popular student hangouts are in an uproar over changes to the site that they say make their online musings much too public, turning their personal lives into a flashing billboard.

"I don't like it because it's kind of stalker-ish," said Yan Fu, a freshman at George Washington University.

Fu's sentiment was shared by many Facebook users, hundreds of thousands of whom have joined ad hoc groups of petitioners calling themselves "I hate the new facebook format" and "Students Against Facebook News Feed." '

Its actually a two page article that you can find by clicking on the link above. The Washington Post, for those who don't know, went to court in the early 1970's for refusing to stop publishing a top secret Pentagon report on the war in Vietnam called "The Pentagon Papers", they also helped bring Nixon down with top secret leaks about Watergate from Mark Felt to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. I knew things were starting fall apart when they accepted the Bush Administration's lies about Iraq at face value and helped lead the country into an unnecessary war, but apparently they have now learned their lesson. Scandal, war and corruption is whats out. Facebook is what's in.

Look for some news? Here's a start:

http://news.bbc.co.uk

Here is some news being missed!

Remember the Israeli/Lebanon conflict? Me too! Everyone forgot about the Palestinians though. Especially those in Gaza who were so graciously freed by the "Gaza Disengagement Plan" when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip! So how have they been doing?

Well Israel sealed off the 15 mile strip of land that houses 1.5 million people. Not even fisherman are allowed to go out to sea. It is essentially a giant prison and apparently most people are starving and living in complete misery.

"It is the worst year for us since 1948 [when Palestinian refugees first poured into Gaza]," says Dr Maged Abu-Ramadan, a former ophthalmologist who is mayor of Gaza City. "Gaza is a jail. Neither people nor goods are allowed to leave it. People are already starving. They try to live on bread and falafel and a few tomatoes and cucumbers they grow themselves."

According to the Israeli paper Ha'aretz: Gaza "is in its worst condition, ever...the Israeli Defense Forces have been rampaging through Gaza - there's no other word to describe it - killing and demolishing, bombing and shelling, indiscriminately...Gaza is occupied, and with greater brutality than before. In large parts of Gaza nowadays, there is no electricity...There's hardly any water...Piles of garbage and obnoxious clouds of stink strangle the coastal strip, turning it into Calcutta" http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1372026.ece

This itself is disgusting and sickening, and this is why Arabs hate the US/Israel and increasingly Europe. The United States led the effort to block all humanitarian aid to the Palestinians and the United States could snap its fingers have tell everyone, including the Israeli's, to lift the sanctions. Anyone with a conscience should be sick to their stomach at whats going on, which is completely blacked out of the media. Again, I reiterate, this is some how supposed to stop terrorism. I somehow doubt it will work.